[tied] Re: A New language tree

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "P&G" <G&P@...> wrote:

> >> >The Sanskrit system could be and inmho IS the original.
>
> This was debated over many decades when IE linguistics got going 150

years

> ago. The arguments that convinced linguists then are still as strong
> today. It is just not possible the Sanskrit is the origin of all

other IE

> languages.
>
> It's always fun, though, to rehearse the arguments. Here's a

starter (and

> I'm sure there are better arguments):
> (a) Some changes are impossible (or extremely unlikely), e.g. :
> In the usual analysis, Sanskrit has lost some distinctions (e.g.

k/kW and

> e/a/o). So seeing it as the original language means a large number of
> phoneme splits - where a phoneme becomes one thing in some words, but
> another in others, without any logic or rhyme or reason. Such

things do not

> happen in any of the languages we have been able to observe

historically.

> (b) Some changes are much easier to explain in the usual system, e.g. :
> Sanskrit shows irregular patterns such as perfect reduplication tat-

but

> cak- (not kak-); dad-, but jag- (not gag-). The usual explanation

is that

> Sanskrit was originally regular (tet-, kek-, ded-, geg-), but velar
> consonants were palatalised before the -e- ( a very common

occurrence in

> languages). If Sanskrit were original, then you have to find a way of
> getting from dad-, cak- etc to the regular ded- kek- we find elsewhere.

>
> Peter

Elsewhere? Elsewhere! That is the problem. There is no elsewhere.
Those langauges are NOT genetically related. You just want them to be.
Its a mirage.

M. kelkar